Cross-posted to the BlogsCanada election blog.
Well that was a national embarassment. It’s deeply worrying to know that four grown men, the hopeful visionaries of our nation’s future, can’t respect and talk civilly to each other for a couple of hours. I probably missed 30 or 40 percent of what was being said because two (or more) people were talking at once. I know that’s how things sometimes go in the House of Commons, but it was utterly ridiculous.
MacLean’s Paul Wells puts it best:
These guys had two hours to discuss their plans for governing half a continent. A trillion-dollar economy. A national government for 30 million people. You’d think they’d have a lot on their minds.
And all they did was shout one another down, ask questions they knew could not be answered, declare their opponents unable to answer their bogus questions after the barest of pauses, and otherwise engage in a way that would have shamed the parents of any four-year-old.
My friend compares the leaders’ debate to Plinko, that game on The Price is Right. That is, whatever question you drop in the top, you’re going to get one of eight answers from the leader out the bottom. Ultimately, the leaders did nothing to help me decide who to vote for. In fact, it discouraged me to vote for any of these whingers.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
I’m surprised that people are surprised at the way the debate was conducted. Interruption, catcalling, taunting and disrespect have been par for the course in Parliament for years, and previous leadership debates have been just as childish. The problem, just as much as poor debating etiquette, is poor moderation. Interruption and rudeness should be squashed ruthlessly in a debate or in the house.
Plinko’s a great game, too. If I had to compare this election race to a Price is Right game, it would be the one with that smiling Swiss dude who climbs the price mountain and goes over the edge lest the player be a savy pricer. He just smiles right to the top and over the edge. What a freak.